Allowed

Chandu Musalman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC2 May 2024/2614/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for an applicant in judicial custody who surrendered after a non-bailable warrant was issued. The court noted his clean record since 2013 bail and compelling reasons for absence, ordering his release on bond with conditions to attend trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific undertakings regarding trial attendance.

Chandu Musalman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34376

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2614 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chandu Musalman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Nijam Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Nijam Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶7

Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit, the same is taken on record.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 23.05.2023 in Case Crime No.1155 of 2010, under Sections 394, 302, 201 & 120-B of IPC, Police Station – Kotwali Tanda, District – Ambedkar Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is a case where the present applicant had been granted bail by the trial court itself vide order dated 22.06.2013 passed in Bail Application No.150 of 2013 (Annexure No.2). After getting bail from the learned trial court, the applicant had been cooperating in the trial proceedings but he being a poor person had gone to Mumbai for his livelihood alongwith his family on the assurance of his counsel that his case would be properly attended but his case was not properly attended by his counsel, resultant thereof, non-bailable warrant was issued against the present applicant by the learned trial court. As soon as the applicant came to know about the non-bailable warrant having been issued, he surrendered before the trial court on 23.05.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Learned counsel has stated that due to compelling circumstances, he could not appear before the learned trial court, therefore, the aforesaid act of the applicant may be excused treating the same as bonafide mistake.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and even after releasing from jail in the year 2013 pursuant to the bail order, he has not committed any offence of any kind whatsoever inasmuch as recital to this effect has been

¶11

given in para-22 of the bail application that the applicant is respectable person of the society and he has never been involved in any criminal activities and he has no criminal history at all. Learned counsel has stated that while filing counter affidavit, no denial to this effect has been given by the prosecution in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel has further submitted that for the aforesaid fact that he could not appear before the learned trial court he is in judicial custody/ jail for about one year, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel has further stated that if the applicant is released on bail considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant undertakes that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; the fact that the applicant was granted bail by the trial court but since he could not appear before the trial court under compelling circumstances, non-bailable warrant was issued pursuant to which the applicant surrendered and now, he is in judicial custody w.e.f. 23.05.2023 i.e. for about one year; the fact that the applicant has no prior criminal history and after getting bail in the year 2013, he has not been involved in any criminal activities and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let applicant- Chandu Musalman be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may

¶18

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 2.5.2024 RBS/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandu Musalman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandu Musalman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sonpal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Taleband Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Gulshan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Deptt. Lko

Mohd Israel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rishikant Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.Lko

Prem Narayan Pal vs Dist. Magistrate, Amethi and Another